A gun doesn't protect from danger in any way near the same way the pill protects from pregnancy. You need to know how to use a gun for it to be effective. For that, you need continuous practice. A gun is also dangerous so it needs to be kept in a safe. All these things would also need to be paid for.

One thing is wrong with your argument. It isn't always possible to send your children to another school, especially if you're living in a rural area. Schools should not force children to observe a religion they don't understand or necessarily believe in. (And in the UK children are forced in some schools to sit in assembly and pray. These are state funded schools. I went to one. If the UK, a less religious country, has this problem then it's likely the US does too.)

I think that dangerous STI's such as AIDS are a million times more worrying than pregnancy. The emotional consequences can also be pretty harsh for some people and there are social consequences to consider also. Some people regard their reputation as more important than anything.

It wasn't a matter of being able to study 'comfortably' it was being able to study at all. I took time off school when I was on my period because of the pain being such a huge distraction that I would not be able to understand what is normally either easy or slightly challenging. It isn't my fault that I'm female or that I had overly painful periods and this clearly put me at a disadvantage for a few years. If not just one, but many, students are incapable of using +/-25% of their government-funded schooling time effectively, is this not a bad thing? For me, it was up to 1 week off school a month incapable of studying when it was at its worst. Painkillers would last up to an hour and then I would have to last another 3 hours before I could take another.

Everybody makes stupid decisions. Some people get drunk. Other people refuse completely to walk the same way back as they came causing them to get hopelessly lost in the middle of the night (that would be me). I don't see how the pill encourages poor decisions. It doesn't remove all the consequences of sleeping with someone without a condom. It only removes 1 possible consequence.

I didn't say once that getting drunk wasn't someone's fault. Indeed, I said the exact opposite. What you seem to disagree with is that there are situations that make it more likely for people to drink: like unemployment, poor education etcetera. You seem to like stereotyping and ignore anything that doesn't fit in the little boxes. People are like electrons. They bounce around and do their own thing but they can be directed and controlled. When creating electronic devices, engineers try to make them as efficient as possible by reducing any resistance.

In many parts of the world access to birth control is a barrier. It is a barrier to women's equality and health. It is a barrier to the growth of the country. In developed countries access to birth control is also important. $20 a week is a lot of money. Condoms can be expensive, although if condoms were not available free I think more competition would drive the price down. The economic argument is simple. If free birth control encourages more people to use it, the state does not have to spend as much money and the people also have more disposable income which is good for the economy.

About the whole drunk thing, a lot of people get drunk regularly. The intelligence of their choice is not the subject of this debate. If a woman gets drunk and ends up sleeping with some random guy while on the pill: no pregnancy, no abortion, or no child in care. Or maybe she slept with her boyfriend, or even husband. Whoever it was, if she got pregnant and couldn't afford to keep another child the outcome is the same.

EDIT: Do you care so little for debating that you copy and paste your arguments?